Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

[Just AnotherPerson]

This is a really cool story. I am looking forward to advancements in green tech.

See more at the link https://phys.org/news/2019-03-coffee...bsorption.html

Excerpt:

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal energy mostly rely on the indirect absorption of sunlight, where the efficiency is generally limited as a result of major convective heat losses into the surrounding environment. A promising alternative is the direct absorption of sunlight, where a fluid can serve as both solar energy absorber and heat carrier. The advantage of the technique is based on reduced convective and radiative heat losses, since temperature peak shifts from the absorbent surface (indirect absorption) to the bulk region of the carrier fluid (direct absorption). In a recent study, Matteo Alberghini and co-workers at the Departments of Energy, Applied Science and Technology, and the National Institute of Optics in Italy, investigated a sustainable, stable and inexpensive colloid based on coffee solutions to implement direct solar absorption. Results of their work are now published on Scientific Reports.

[Peter1469]

Fusion is the most promising advanced energy tech, solar is an inferior, but acceptable advanced energy tech. Especially for local energy production and use. The larger they area served by solar the less efficient it becomes - until batteries advance much further than they are today.

[FindersKeepers]

I'm for clean dependable energy, but I have to say that the ridiculous subsidies of solar and wind -- to date -- is depressing and little more than a greed scheme.

Nuclear is the probably the way to go for now -- clean, efficient, dependable. But solar and wind are intermittent, and Bill Gate's recent denouncement of both was dead on -- we have to move away from those two and toward something that will actually work for our nation.

When the wind farms had to shut down in Illinois as a result of the low temps during the last polar vortex, scientists began questioning the wisdom of intermittent energy sources. I'm no longer a fan of either solar or wind.

[Peter1469]

I'm for clean dependable energy, but I have to say that the ridiculous subsidies of solar and wind -- to date -- is depressing and little more than a greed scheme.

Nuclear is the probably the way to go for now -- clean, efficient, dependable. But solar and wind are intermittent, and Bill Gate's recent denouncement of both was dead on -- we have to move away from those two and toward something that will actually work for our nation.

When the wind farms had to shut down in Illinois as a result of the low temps during the last polar vortex, scientists began questioning the wisdom of intermittent energy sources. I'm no longer a fan of either solar or wind.

Wind and solar are limited until batteries get up to snuff. Although in the 3rd World wind and solar is better than what they have now.

[Just AnotherPerson]

I'm for clean dependable energy, but I have to say that the ridiculous subsidies of solar and wind -- to date -- is depressing and little more than a greed scheme.

Nuclear is the probably the way to go for now -- clean, efficient, dependable. But solar and wind are intermittent, and Bill Gate's recent denouncement of both was dead on -- we have to move away from those two and toward something that will actually work for our nation.

When the wind farms had to shut down in Illinois as a result of the low temps during the last polar vortex, scientists began questioning the wisdom of intermittent energy sources. I'm no longer a fan of either solar or wind.

I believe we should not have to subsidize any company, that is just my opinion. Let each company succeed or fail on it's own accord. So I can agree with you on that first sentence.

I do disagree on the rest but to explain my standpoint takes a long winded effort. LoL.

[FindersKeepers]

I believe we should not have to subsidize any company, that is just my opinion. Let each company succeed or fail on it's own accord. So I can agree with you on that first sentence.

I do disagree on the rest but to explain my standpoint takes a long winded effort. LoL.

I completely agree with the no subsidy part.

[FindersKeepers]

Wind and solar are limited until batteries get up to snuff. Although in the 3rd World wind and solar is better than what they have now.

I don't think batteries will ever get up to snuff, it's just not fiscally feasible, but I agree that in 3rd world nations it's better than nothing.

Eventually, technology will bring us dependable and clean energy, but right now, that's nuclear. Wind and solar have been subsidized to such a huge extent, and in states that welcomed wind, electric rates are now through the roof (Kansas). We really need to have affordable sources of energy, because without them, we're going to be pricing electricity out of the reach of the poor and the elderly. And, I just can't agree with that.

[Peter1469]

I don't think batteries will ever get up to snuff, it's just not fiscally feasible, but I agree that in 3rd world nations it's better than nothing.

Eventually, technology will bring us dependable and clean energy, but right now, that's nuclear. Wind and solar have been subsidized to such a huge extent, and in states that welcomed wind, electric rates are now through the roof (Kansas). We really need to have affordable sources of energy, because without them, we're going to be pricing electricity out of the reach of the poor and the elderly. And, I just can't agree with that.

Of course battery tech will improve. It is only a matter of time.

[FindersKeepers]

Of course battery tech will improve. It is only a matter of time.

I agree -- it will approve, just not to the point where it will solve the intermittency problems. It's really worth listening to this short little video.

[countryboy]

I'm for clean dependable energy, but I have to say that the ridiculous subsidies of solar and wind -- to date -- is depressing and little more than a greed scheme.

Nuclear is the probably the way to go for now -- clean, efficient, dependable. But solar and wind are intermittent, and Bill Gate's recent denouncement of both was dead on -- we have to move away from those two and toward something that will actually work for our nation.

When the wind farms had to shut down in Illinois as a result of the low temps during the last polar vortex, scientists began questioning the wisdom of intermittent energy sources. I'm no longer a fan of either solar or wind.

Neither wind or solar is very environmentally friendly. Mining toxic rare earth metals, and killing millions of birds and bats is not the way to go. But try telling this to the wokety woke, and they bite your head off.